W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: A Challenge Problem for Promise Designers

From: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:18:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjR9Nr2jp8i9Fu7EOouoJx=uoiNTSJiuMojHqwYN0aGjnZwOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dean Landolt <dean@deanlandolt.com>
Cc: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>, Dean Tribble <tribble@e-dean.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On 26 April 2013 16:25, Dean Landolt <dean@deanlandolt.com> wrote:
> The fundamental controversy, as Juan just noted, is how to precisely
> identify a promise in order to do either of these two things. This problem
> isn't quite so clean cut, but it's much more important to solve. I've been
> trying to bring some attention to it over the last few days -- I hope it's
> clear that a `then` method is not enough to identify a promise language
> construct -- this will subtly break existing code (e.g. casperjs).

Let me note that this is not the fundamental controversy (not for me,
anyway). The fundamental controversy is whether there should be any
irregularity at all, as is unavoidably introduced by implicit
flattening. The problem you describe just makes the negative effect of
that irregularity worse.

Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 15:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC